Skip to main content
Glama

Kaleidoscope MCP (SEC & financial data)

Adviser Fee Schedule (full Form ADV Part-2A: mgmt/perf rates + components + raw_excerpt)

adv_manager_fees
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full Form ADV Part-2A brochure fee schedule for one adviser — header (firm-level rollup: headline mgmt + perf fees, hurdle / high-water-mark / negotiable / ceiling flags, defers_to_governing_docs, is_private_fund_adviser, source filing date) PLUS every component row (per-product / per-account-tier fee with its verbatim raw_excerpt and extractor confidence).

Coverage: 23,266 advisers with extracted fee records (one per adviser from their latest trailing-12-mo Part-2A); 2,236 are 13F-joinable via cik. 78% have a mgmt-fee; 13% have a perf-fee. 79% locator hit rate (21% misses are brochures not in S3 / Part-2B supplements / no locatable Item 5).

SEVEN LLM-facing gotchas — bake into any prompt that consumes this output:

  1. Quote, don't paraphrase. Cite raw_excerpt verbatim. The structured rate_pct is for screening, NOT for narrative quoting.

  2. rate_is_ceiling=true means 'up to X%', NOT 'charges X%' — say so explicitly.

  3. defers_to_governing_docs=true means real rate is in the LPA / PPM and the brochure won't disclose. Honest answer is 'not disclosed in the brochure' — do NOT report the structured rate as the actual rate in this case.

  4. tiers populated means headline rate is the top-line; effective rate depends on account size. Reproduce tier breakpoints when account size matters.

  5. confidence + fee_source_filed_at — surface both. Fee schedules go stale; a 2022 brochure ≠ current rate.

  6. fee_data_available=false (no row in firm_fees for this CRD) is the explicit empty signal. NEVER treat absent fee data as 'no fees' or 'charges zero' — the brochure just hasn't been extracted yet.

  7. NULL ≠ no fee. Most important for perf fees: 91% of private-fund advisers with a fee record have defers_to_governing_docs=true because carry lives in the LPA. When headline_perf_fee_pct IS NULL, read defers_to_governing_docs first. true → 'performance fee exists but the brochure defers the rate to fund documents.' Only false + NULL supports 'no performance fee disclosed.' NEVER say 'charges no performance fee' from a NULL alone.

Honest tail caveat: ~4% of perf-fee firms read >30% (e.g. '50% of carried interest', '100% subject to clawback') — these are real brochure values with carry-split semantics that don't map cleanly to a 'performance fee %'. The headline is a max-rollup. Dollar-amount-as-percent extraction artifacts (e.g. $10,000 flat tier landing as 10000%) were fixed by adv on 2026-06-11 — rate_pct >100 now reroutes to rate_flat_usd per-tier (verified live: 0 firms with headline >100, 538 13F-joinable advisers match ≤1% mgmt). Still: always inspect raw_excerpt + confidence before quoting any rate as the actual fee. The fees block carries source_filing_id + source_brochure_id (the Form ADV filing and Part 2A brochure the header and components were extracted from; if_adv_brochure opens it).

Every adviser crd in the output has the adviser's SEC cik beside it (#2287; x_crd -> x_cik, a CRD list -> ..._crd_ciks): the CIK of the 13F filer that reports under that CRD, else the CIK on its own Form ADV; ciks lists both when they differ; null when neither exists. A row that already had its own cik keeps it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "adv_manager_fees"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
crdNoAdviser CRD ID (primary key). Use when no SEC CIK is available, or when you already know the CRD from `adv_screen_managers` / `adv_manager_profile`.
ticker_or_cikNoTicker (Atlas-resolved) or SEC CIK integer. RIA-only advisers have no CIK; pass `crd` directly for those.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds substantial context beyond them: 23,266-adviser coverage, 79% locator hit rate, empty-state signal fee_data_available=false, staleness via confidence + fee_source_filed_at, defers_to_governing_docs semantics, and NULL-vs-zero distinctions. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations do not carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening paragraph is well front-loaded and the gotchas are cleanly enumerated, so structure is good. However, the text is roughly 450 words for a two-parameter read tool and includes material that does not earn its place, such as the 2026-06-11 extraction-artifact fix note and '0 firms with headline >100, 538 13F-joinable advisers match ≤1% mgmt' verification stats.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: data coverage, joinability via cik, how to read ceiling/tier/deferral flags, empty vs NULL semantics, and provenance fields. Nothing required to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with their routing rules (CRD primary key, ticker-or-CIK, RIA-only advisers have no CIK). The description does not add syntax or precedence beyond the schema; its identifier discussion (crd->cik mapping) is about output fields, not inputs. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Full Form ADV Part-2A brochure fee schedule for one adviser' plus a header rollup and every component row with raw_excerpt/confidence. An agent immediately knows this is a per-adviser fee retrieval, distinct from profile/disciplinary/people siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage guidance is heavily oriented toward interpreting and quoting the output (seven gotchas, NULL semantics) rather than when to call this tool versus adv_manager_profile or adv_screen_managers. The only selection hint sits in the crd parameter description, not the tool description. A reader can infer the intent, but explicit when/when-not and alternatives are absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources